' MRS. SYEDA TAHIRA SAFDAR, J.---Brief facts of the case are that the appellant Syed Saeed Rehman filed instant appeal thereby challenged order dated 8th November, 2010 of Additional District Judge-V, Quetta, whereby the suit filed by respondent No,1 Muhammad Azhar Jamal was decreed in his favour. Further, on an application filed for execution of the decree the appellant was committed to civil prison for a period of one year. This appeal preferred against these orders was admitted for regular hearing through order dated 14th December, 2010. It was further ordered:-- "Learned counsel states that the appellant is prepared to provide surety in the sum of Rupees Twenty six Lacs (Rs,26,00,000) within a period of (3) three weeks to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Accordingly, the appellant is ordered to be released from civil prison with immediate effect if not required in any other case. The appellant however shall not transfer, alienate or otherwise dispose of any property and shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial court until provision of surety of Rs,26,00,000, which is to be provided within three weeks to the satisfaction of the trial court."
' The case file further reveals that the money suit was filed under provisions of Order XXXVII, Rule 2 Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.) for recovery of an amount of Rs,26,00,000 (Rupees Twenty Six lacs).
Due to non-appearance of the appellant/defendant the suit was decreed through judgment dated 11th November, 2009. Thereafter, the appellant approached the court below by way of filing two applications for setting aside of the ex parte decree and for granting him leave to defend. Both these applications were refused, while during course of execution of decree he was committed to civil prison for a period of one year through order dated 8th November, 2010. Being aggrieved of the order instant appeal has been filed. The record further reveals that in compliance of the order dated 14th December, 2010 the appellant submitted two surety bonds, while Abdul Bari son of Abdul Wali, and Liaquat Ali son of Juma Khan stood sureties for him. But despite submitting of the sureties the appellant failed to appear, whereupon through order dated 23rd May, 2011 his sureties were called upon to show cause why their sureties may not be forfeited. Both the sureties appeared in person, and through counsel sought time for production of appellant, but remained failed. The respondent/decree holder while appearing made request that the appeal may not be dismissed for non prosecution, rather sureties be forfeited, and decretal amount be recovered from the persons, who stood sureties for the appellant. Because there is no other means to satisfy the decree.
2. Though, from the contents of the order dated 14th December, 2010 the appellant before this court undertook to provide surety to the tune of Rs,26,00,000, and it was ordered that till providing of surety the appellant shall not transfer, alienate or otherwise dispose of any property and shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial court. The appellant in compliance of the order provided two sureties of Rs,13,00,000 each. The respondent No,1 at this stage prayed for execution of decree against the sureties, and the amount be recovered from them in satisfaction of the Decree. Section 145, C.P.C. Will be relevant in the circumstances, which reads as under:--
145. Enforcement of liability of surely.---Where any person has become liable as surety--
(a) For the performance of any decree or any part thereof or
(b) For the restitution of any property taken in execution of a decree, or
(c) For the payment of any money, or for the fulfilment of any condition imposed on any person, under an order of the Court in any suit or in any proceedings consequent thereon, the decree or order may be executed against him to the extent to which he has rendered himself personally liable, in the manner herein provided for the execution of decrees, and such person shall for the purposes of appeal be deemed a party within the meaning of section 47: ' Provided that such notice as the Court in each case thinks sufficient has been given to the surety.
"
Keeping in view this provision the decree or order become executable against a person stood surety for the judgment debtor, but only in cases as described in the section. Further, the decree be executed against him only to the extent for which he rendered himself personally liable. This means the terms of the sureties submitted will be most relevant in the circumstances, as it will determine the liability of the A surety. In present case though both the persons Abdul Bari son of Abdul Wali, and Liaquat Ali son of Juma Khan stood sureties for the judgment debtor/appellant Syed Saeed Rehman, but their liabilities will be within the limits of the surety submitted by them. Therefore, the terms of the bond submitted by the sureties will be of much importance. The perusal of the surety bonds reveals that the sureties only undertook to produce the appellant in person before the court till decision, and in case of failure they shall be liable for payment of Rs, 13.00.000 (Rupees thirty Lacs) each. But, the terms of the sureties do not speak any undertaking A given by the sureties for payment of decretal amount. Therefore, in the circumstances, as the mentioned sureties did not render them personally liable for payment of decretal amount, therefore, to this extent the request of the respondent cannot be acceded to. But, as both the persons stood surety for production of the appellant in-person before the court during pendency of the appeal, but failed, despite having sufficient opportunities to produce him, thesefore, in the circumstances the surety bonds are liable to be forfeited in favour of the State. But, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case a lenient view is taken, and the bonds thereby submitted are forfeited only to the extent of Rs,10,000.
(Rupees ten thousand) each in favour of the State. The remaining surety bonds shall stand discharged.
3. The appellant is not in attendance,. Nor pursuing the matter despite giving several opportunities, therefore. The appeal stands dismissed in default and for non-prosecution.